Several stories are saying that the school resource officer in that Florida shooting remained outside and did not enter the school during the shooting. He has since resigned. Now this article says that one of the sheriffs is investigating a report that some of his officers were standing outside with guns drawn and were standing behind their cars rather than entering the school.

I can only say this: while we all like to think we would wade into the fire, once gunshots are fired, no one knows what they will do. Someone who has been in repeated firefights might not being able to engage in the next. It's not a movie. Training helps, but still, the self-protection instinct is strong. Everyone thinks they could be the hero. But no one controls that.

I am not certain of this in all areas of the country, and as Doug said, I will take Gene's lead on this, but I do not believe that police officers have any kind of duty to engage under those circumstances.

This came up after Virginia Tech (remember the photos of the officers outside the building while the shooting was still going on?) and has been the subject of legal cases in several instances.

Look up Warren v. District of Columbia, and Gonzales v. Castle Rock as examples.

While many law enforcement officers will, and do engage, the idea of a legal duty "to protect and serve" appears to be inaccurate.

_________________“I dream of an America where a chicken can cross the road without having its motives questioned.”

My son's department does active shooter training every other month. They all have AR's in the cars and are trained to intervene without backup, but not all the time.

They are preached at to use common sense. If they know there are multiple shooters don't go wading in. If they are not sure, move in and find out. They go over and over and over this with different scenarios. There is absolutely no one right answer on what to do.

Of all the training they do, this is THE ONE training that my son hopes he never has to use.

I wrote the SOP on school shooting for my agency back when. I based it on reading a book about special assaults, which said that the success of a special assault was largely decided in the first ten minutes. From that, I assumed that to defeat a special assault was to intervene as soon as possible. Since all the history of school assaults involved one or two perps, our SOP was for the first deputy on the scene was to head for the shooting. While at the time, the SOP was to gather a SWAT team, I figured that an armed and determined officer could probably deal with a one or two teenagers. Or at least minimize the danger. I don't claim to have invented the concept, but I was an early proponent after repeated failures at Columbine and Va Tech.

It ain't the safest policy, but I think it's the right policy. It's why we get paid. Officers, the first on the scene should head for the sound of gunfire since the "wait for the SWAT team" involves several minutes while children are getting killed.

I fully understand Doug's post but you are getting paid and took the oath to protect and serve . I don't know the protocol of that PD so I'll wait a bit for my complete response. I will say I do not trust Sheriff Israel one bit. He is a phony and a lot more will come out about his leadership and the foolish restraints on the police by the school board in their schools.

I am not certain of this in all areas of the country, and as Doug said, I will take Gene's lead on this, but I do not believe that police officers have any kind of duty to engage under those circumstances.

This came up after Virginia Tech (remember the photos of the officers outside the building while the shooting was still going on?) and has been the subject of legal cases in several instances.

Look up Warren v. District of Columbia, and Gonzales v. Castle Rock as examples.

While many law enforcement officers will, and do engage, the idea of a legal duty "to protect and serve" appears to be inaccurate.

It may not be legal responsibility, but it's moral responsibility for a LEO to protect and serve especially in situations where kids are involved. With hostages it's different; you can negotiate. But even then, once shots are fired the accepted response is to assault. The deputies should have went in. I was sworn to do it.

I am not certain of this in all areas of the country, and as Doug said, I will take Gene's lead on this, but I do not believe that police officers have any kind of duty to engage under those circumstances.

This came up after Virginia Tech (remember the photos of the officers outside the building while the shooting was still going on?) and has been the subject of legal cases in several instances.

Look up Warren v. District of Columbia, and Gonzales v. Castle Rock as examples.

While many law enforcement officers will, and do engage, the idea of a legal duty "to protect and serve" appears to be inaccurate.

It may not be legal responsibility, but it's moral responsibility for a LEO to protect and serve especially in situations where kids are involved. With hostages it's different; you can negotiate. But even then, once shots are fired the accepted response is to assault. The deputies should have went in. I was sworn to do it.

I don't disagree...but as soon as we have a legal precedent, all bets are off. I know you'd do what needed to be done, but there's no requirement...as far as I can tell.

_________________“I dream of an America where a chicken can cross the road without having its motives questioned.”

I would have gone in there, no doubt about it. I would have heard where the shots were coming from so I would have known where he was at. Then I would have found a way to approach him or possibly distract him from shooting more students.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum